> They said what they said.
> They obviously understood the hydraulic cycle;
> 1140c. (he is dried) by the wind of the great
> Isis, together with (which) the great Isis dried
> (him) like Horus.
> 1146a. N. is the pouring down of rain; he came
> forth as the coming into being of water;
> 1146b. for he is the nhb-k3.w-serpent with the
> many coils;
> This is clear evidence they understood evaporation
> and condensation. It suggests that "nehebkau"
> isn't some mysterious God that is the messenger of
> the heavens as Egyptology believes but is simply
> the representative of the hydraulic cycle and the
> clouds are the coils of the serpent.
> So why would they think the sun was two two
> dimensional? Where did they say that Nehebkau was
> the Messenger of the Gods?
First, let me say I appreciate how you read this text. Honestly.
Continuing, I note you are using Mercer (nothing wrong with that at all), but I would say you will find great joy when comparing to Faulkner. Also, be aware of the full utterance (510) and others of similar content. Example, in Faulkner S1147 (you stopped at S1146) has something very interesting to say. Rain isn't red.
I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised to know I concur with you that some of the interpretations are lost on some Egyptological grammophiles (Gardiner, Faulkner, Allen, Mercer, Budge, etc). I think what you'll agree with is we are looking at it from a fresh 'oustide' perspective, i.e. no so blinded by their early conflations.
> How can they be so
> observant of the hydraulic cycle yet believe the
> sun was a God that was pulled across the sky by a
I would think a hydraulic cycle is immediate in their environment, thus more easily 'discovered'. Observing boiling water on a fire pit could pique an inquisitive AE. As for the sun, the tangible is completely lost; the could not know it was a monstrous sphere of fire 93 million miles away; that we were on a sphere travelling around it; that the moon phases were a consequence of this; etc. When the ancients questioned what they saw, they came up with a pretty good, reasoned idea .. to them. It 'made sense' it was a god crossing 'nut' (the sky) on a barque.
> Why is it so impossible that Egyptology
> misunderstands the language?
Do they get it all wrong? No. The more material you dive into, it becomes more apparent the general understanding is locked in quite good. But not all of it, otherwise they still wouldn't be writing books about it, right?